Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 10, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-355 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 AND 30, 1995 ............. 75-355 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CDB Infotek to Develop, Implement, and Maintain Document Imaging Applications for Fire and Utilities Departments; and Modify and Maintain Police and Planning/Building Inspection Applications ............................... 75-355 2. Resolution 7491 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Opposition to the Privatization Proposal for the Federal Power Marketing Administrations ....................................... 75-355 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approval of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boulevard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adjacent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage, extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999; (b) approval of resolution amending the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; (c) adoption of ordinance rezoning a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from R-1 and GM(B) to RM-30; and (d) amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040, which would allow (with a conditional use permit) the development of parking facilities on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in the RM-30 and RM-40 zoning districts ...................................... 75-356 4A. (Old Item 6) Initiation of an Area-Wide or Specific Planning Process for Properties between Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Lambert Avenue .... 75-358 4B. (Old Item 7) Mayor Simitian and Council Member Kniss re Resolution Supporting the Palo Alto Unified School District's Issuance of General Obligation Bonds 04/10/95 75-353 (Measure B) ........................................... 75-359 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 75-361 8. Council Members Huber and Fazzino and Vice Mayor Wheeler re Referral of Tree Task Force Recommendations to Policy and Services and Finance Committees ......... 75-377 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-377 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. .......... 75-378 04/10/95 75-354 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honest government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Hilary Hug, 381 Oxford Avenue, spoke regarding Council request last Monday. Ken Schwartz, no address given, spoke regarding PARA proposal. Cecelia Horn, 3470 Janice Way, spoke regarding democracy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 AND 30, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of January 23, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Schneider abstaining. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of January 30, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and CDB Infotek to Develop, Implement, and Maintain Document Imaging Applications for Fire and Utilities Departments; and Modify and Maintain Police and Planning/Building Inspection Applications 2. Resolution 7491 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Opposition to the Privatization Proposal for the Federal Power Marketing Administrations" MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Simitian removed Closed Session Item No. 3, Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation, from the agenda. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item Nos. 6 and 7 forward to become Item Nos. 4A and 4B, respectfully. 04/10/95 75-355 MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recommends approval of (a) an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.94.070(b) for property located at 3200 Park Boule-vard, 340 Portage Avenue, and the adjacent former railroad right-of-way with Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue frontage, extending the nonresidential use amortization schedule for the former Maximart site for 20 years beyond 1999; (b) approval of resolution amending the City of Palo Alto Compre-hensive Plan land use designation for a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from Single-Family Residential and Light Industrial to Multiple-Family Residential; (c) adoption of ordinance rezoning a portion of the contiguous, abandoned railroad right-of-way property from R-1 and GM(B) to RM-30; and (d) amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.24.040 and 18.26.040, which would allow (with a conditional use permit) the development of parking facilities on abandoned railroad right-of-way properties located in the RM-30 and RM-40 zoning districts. (Continued from 3/27/95) Council Member Fazzino said he had had several previous conversa-tions with the City Attorney regarding a possible conflict of interest for him on the issue given his employment by Hewlett Packard. The City Attorney felt at the time that there should not be a significant concern regarding the conflict. He asked for the City Attorney's advice regarding the issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the general rule under the Political Reform Act was that designated officials such as the Council were not to make or participate in the making of decisions in which it was known that there could be a financial impact of a material nature on a financial interest. A financial interest included the source of income as well as direct investments and real estate. Both Council Members Fazzino and Kniss had as sources of income either directly or as community property Hewlett Packard. Hewlett Packard owned the parcel at 395 Page Mill Road which was approximate to the Fry's Electronics site. Under a conflict analysis, it required affected Council Members to understand what the nature of any potential financial impact on the Hewlett Packard property might be. The salient test out of the Political Reform Regulations was whether the Council decision might affect the value of that asset by $1 million either way. The legal test was that a conflict of interest would be present for Council Members Fazzino and Kniss if the Council's action on the Fry's Electronics/Maximart site would have a $1 million impact on value of the Hewlett Packard 395 Page Mill Road site. Under the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, a qualified financial appraisal was needed to reach that conclusion. He had advised Council Members Fazzino and Kniss that if he/she believed there could be a $1 million impact, he/she should decline to participate. There was an approximate estimate of the 395 Page Mill Road site; and if the range of the impact was somewhere 04/10/95 75-356 between 5 percent and 20 percent of the value of the site, it would be $1 million. Another issue for Council Member Fazzino was the discussion of toxic contamination underlying the sites. Under the Political Reform Regulations, if the Council were making the decision in the context of the Fry's/Maximart site, which was binding on a piece of property owned by Hewlett Packard, Hewlett Packard would be considered directly involved in the decision along with Fry's/Maximart. He did not believe that was the case and the technical advice received from the FPPC indicated that was unlikely. However, technical advice from the FPPC provided no protection or immunity under the law to Council Members Fazzino and Kniss. The only option that he could recommend would be that Council Members Fazzino and Kniss seek formal opinions from the FPPC as to that second direct involvement question relating to the toxic contamination. The FPPC would not be helpful with the financial issue and the only way to resolve that issue would be for the Council Members involved to seek an appraisal opinion at his/her expense to try and resolve the issue. Council Member Fazzino said when the issue arose previously, there was not much, if any, discussion of the groundwater issue and that had become a more significant concern for many people associated with the issue. He tried to be as conservative as possible when in matters of conflict. He agreed with the City Attorney's advice and he would seek an FPPC opinion before he participated in any decision regarding the Fry's Electronics site. Given the uncer-tainty over the issues of participation, he would not participate in the item that evening. Council Member Kniss was extremely uncomfortable with moving forward with action that evening. She concurred with the comments of Council Member Fazzino and would not participate in the item that evening. Mayor Simitian said the City Attorney mentioned that the technical assistance given and his review of the matter did not provide the individual Council Members with any protection. He asked whether there was a risk that the decision would be voided at a later date if the two Council Members participated in the action and it was found at a later date there was a conflict. Mr. Calonne said yes. Mayor Simitian clarified it was not a matter of the individual Council Member's liability but whether or not his/her participation would taint the decision in a way that might leave the Council's action subject to challenge at a later date. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He was comfortable with his opinion regarding the direct involvement question relating to the toxic contamination. Mayor Simitian said the City Attorney mentioned that an appraisal might be a prerequisite for the two Council Members to move forward with any certainty about whether or not a conflict did or did not exist. He confirmed that the cost of the appraisal might 04/10/95 75-357 fall on the Council Members. He was troubled with the burden it placed on the Council Members and suggested a precedent be established that encouraged people in the future to investigate thoroughly any possible conflict of interest. He asked whether the Council could pay the cost of the appraisal that would be used to assist the Council Members in determining the matter. Mr. Calonne said he would need to research the matter and confer with the City Manager. Mayor Simitian said if the law permitted, it would be sound public policy for the Council to engage in a policy that encouraged rather than discouraged Council Members from stepping forward to assure that there was no conflict of interest. He asked staff to return to the Council with information on that point. He asked the timetable if a formal opinion were requested from the FPPC. Mr. Calonne said if the City laid out all the facts, the FPPC might respond in approximately six weeks. Mayor Simitian asked whether the items required a simple majority of four or five votes or whether six votes were required if the Council took action that evening with seven Council Members. Mr. Calonne said the Ordinance required five affirmative votes. Council Member Schneider said it would be imprudent for the Council to proceed without the benefit of Council Members Fazzino and Kniss presence. Council Member Huber asked whether it would take approximately six weeks for the FPPC's to render an opinion after it received the information from the City and whether the City Attorney would prepare the questions for the FPPC. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He could draft the information for review and signature by the Council Members or he could submit the information under his own name. The information could be forwarded to the FPPC within one week if that was the Council's desire. Council Member Huber preferred that Council Members Fazzino and Kniss participate in the item. The issue was significant to the community and all the Council Members should participate. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to continue Item Nos. 4 and 4A until the City has received an opinion from the Fair Political Practices Commission with respect to the ability of Council Members Fazzino and Kniss to participate in the items. 4A. (Old Item 6) Mayor Simitian, Vice Mayor Wheeler, and Council Member McCown re Initiation of an Area-Wide or Specific Planning Process for Properties between Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and Lambert Avenue 04/10/95 75-358 Council Member McCown said the FPPC's official opinion on the issue should be sought. She hoped it would confirm the City Attorney's initial view, but if the conclusion were to the contrary, she asked whether there was any issue with respect to what had occurred up to that point by way of participation in the process. Mr. Calonne said that was possible. The issue was not ignored the previous year, and he felt there was nothing reasonably foreseeable yet to deal with. The issue matured as more facts came in which was why Council Members Fazzino and Kniss felt differently that evening than he/she did previously. Council Member McCown asked whether during the pending period would it be prudent for the Council Members who did not need to await that opinion not to discuss the issue further with Council Members Fazzino and Kniss so there was no potential issue. Mr. Calonne said his advice to Council Members Fazzino and Kniss would be not to engage in discussion of the issue at all. Forbidden action was not simply voting--it was making or partici-pating in making the decision in any way, including substantive discussion. Council Member McCown said none of the Council Members wanted to be in a place where only seven members could vote on something as significant as the issue. On the other hand, if that situation happened, the seven Council Members wanted to move forward with action on the issue. Council Member Andersen concurred with the comments of his colleagues. He asked whether the proposal to determine who paid for the appraisal would be done concurrently. Mr. Calonne wanted specific Council direction to look at the legal question of whether the City could pay for the appraisals for the Council Members. The FPPC would not give the Council anything meaningful on the first question without an appraisal. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the City Attorney be directed to review the possibility of the City paying for the appraisal associated with the Hewlett Packard site. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating." 4B. (Old Item 7) Mayor Simitian and Council Member Kniss re Resolution Supporting the Palo Alto Unified School District's Issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Measure B) Jim Brown, Superintendent, Palo Alto Unified School District, said the Council's interest and support for Measure B was appreciated. Measure B was one of the most important projects undertaken by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the community for many years. The $143 million in bonds which it would generate would directly impact the education of children in the community for many years. The bond funds would be used to renovate and upgrade all schools in Palo Alto that were presently open and 04/10/95 75-359 operating. The funds would address major infrastructure needs such as roofing, paving, plumbing, heating, and ventilation and would rewire the schools for modern technology, and would implement specific seismic upgrades. The funds would also be used to address the cost related to inflation and some specific new construction needs including the enlargement of elementary classrooms and the replacement of 20- to 30-year temporary classrooms located on several classrooms. Measure B represented the result of planning efforts that began in the PAUSD over four years previously with the Schools for the 21st Century Committee, a broad-based committee of parents, staff members, and community representatives who took a careful look at the school facilities and decided it was time to step forward into the 21st Century. Several thoughtful recommendations were prepared for the Board of Education that identified potential project needs that ranged in costs up to $2 million. The Board of Education reviewed the recommendations very carefully and commissioned two surveys of the community and a careful site review of each school site to determine specific cost factors and renovation needs at each school site. It had since required even more extensive planning at the staff level to prepare for the next steps. The PAUSD believed that Measure B represented a responsible, fiscally accountable plan for the renovation and upgrading of all the school facilities. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Resolution supporting the Palo Alto Unified School District's Issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Measure B) on the ballot in the June 6, 1995, Election. Resolution 7492 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Palo Alto Unified School District's Issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Measure B)" Mayor Simitian said as a former President of the PAUSD School Board, he had observed firsthand that the need was very real and great at each of the PAUSD's 15 schools. He did not view it as a PAUSD issue but as an issue of immense importance to the entire community and the City of Palo Alto. He viewed the approval of Measure B as the single most important action that the community would make for the current year. The benefits of a well educated community accrued to the entire community, and the responsibility to ensure that there was a well educated community rest with the entire community. The costs both financial as well as societal of a poorly educated community fell on everyone, not just 20 percent of the community that might have youngsters in the schools. He was pleased to lend support and hoped the vote would be unanimous. Council Member Kniss referred to an article in the San Jose Mercury News regarding Palo Alto High School. Throughout her tenure on the PAUSD School Board, money was put into teachers, books, and supplies, but nothing was put into the housing. It was a pleasure to support Measure B, and she felt the community recognized the importance of education and would support the measure. 04/10/95 75-360 Council Member Andersen asked whether there would be a conflict of interest regarding his participation on the item. City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained that government income was excluded from the definition of income, and there would not be a conflict of interest. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update Mayor Simitian announced the City Council would review the Natural Environment (NE) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Polices and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). Council Member Andersen asked whether the revisions as noted in the staff report (CMR:208:95) would be incorporated in the language. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said pages 2 and 3 of the staff report responded to three requests that came out of the first discussion of the NE Section: (1) to recommend a modified vision statement, (2) replacement wording for Goal NE-1 and Policy NE-1.A, and (3) text that related to water policies. Council Member Fazzino was comfortable with the staff's response and that the City was looking for alternative sources beyond the current Hetch Hetchy source of water and addressing the broader issues of the water allocation policy. Mayor Simitian asked whether Council Member Fazzino's previous comments had some significance regarding Policy NE-3.A, "Groundwa-ter recharge should be protected by incorporating conditions which promote: the preservation of natural drainage systems; the protection of wetlands; the avoidance of impermeable surfaces on areas mapped by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) as groundwater recharge areas." He asked why the policy should not be in the Plan if the City were concerned about groundwater recharge being protected and having alterative sources available at times of drought. Dena Mossar, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Subcommittee on Natural Environment, said a lot of the verbiage before the Council talked about preserving alterative sources for drinking water but also spoke regarding many of the 04/10/95 75-361 creek protection policies that existed. The urban and the natural landscapes survived on groundwater. Valuable water, including drinking water, would be taken from environment if the City did not promote policies that thought about recharging the groundwa-ter. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had struggled with where to put all the pieces. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said staff had currently three operating wells in the City which were utilized for emergency purposes only. The wells were low priority for providing water to the City's customers. Mayor Simitian clarified the wells were not used during the seven-year drought. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified individual property owners' wells were used during the drought. Mr. Mrizek was uncertain. Mayor Simitian clarified the use of the wells did contribute to the problem with the groundwater recharge during a drought period. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct but it was minimal. If the City exercised the wells, it would pay a groundwater fee to Santa Clara County for its recharging. Mayor Simitian said when there was a drought, people were asked to conserve to greater or lesser degrees. The need to conserve to greater or lesser degrees was in part a function of what was available in alternative water sources. People used the wells during conservation and the groundwater recharge suffered. One way to avoid that problem during the next drought would be to make sure there were alternative sources available. He preferred that language be incorporated in the Plan that specifically indicated that the City would pursue alternative sources with the expectation that it would be available during a drought in order to discourage depletion of the groundwater. Council Member Andersen understood that because of the geology of the area, the City did not suffer the kind of subsidence and that the City was less likely to contribute to the kinds of problems being discussed that evening. Mr. Mrizek believed Council Member Andersen was correct but he would have to research the issue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) concluded each year that the City had benefitted by its spreading activities which happened south of Palo Alto in basins which had no hydrologic connection to the City. He understood none of the SCVWD's groundwater recharge activities did anything in the City. 04/10/95 75-362 Council Member Huber asked whether the SCVWD controlled the amount of groundwater that could be pumped in a drought situation. Mr. Mrizek said the City had never encountered the issue where the City pumped groundwater. The City was controlled by the Hetch Hetchy system as part of the percentage that could be taken. The SCVWD would probably have the same requirement if the City decided to exercise the wells in a drought situation. Council Member Huber asked whether the SCVWD controlled private wells. Ms. Mossar understood that citizens had to have a permit with the SCVWD to operate a well and that the SCVWD monitored the well's usage. She asked the Council to reinstate NE-3.C2, "Include local, state and federal policies and standards designed to encourage efficient use of water resources in City codes, regula-tions, and procedures where practical." The intention of that program and other programs in the NE Section differed from the prior Comp Plan. The program attempted to include conservation and resource protection mechanisms in the planning process, e.g., part of the review process for a new development would ask whether efficient technology was being used to conserve water usage. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to retain Program NE-3.C2 "Include local, state and federal policies and standards designed to encourage efficient use of water resources in City codes, regulations, and procedures where practical," in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. City Manager June Fleming said staff would sort out the programs if it found any of the programs to be inconsistent in the document. Mayor Simitian clarified the Council would move forward with the understanding that staff would advise the Council of what was being sorted then if there were some Council policy direction in the sorting, it could be discussed. Mr. Calonne said there was quite a bit of preemption in the area so there was not much that staff could do. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Wheeler said Program NE-4.A6, "Control toxic discharge to creeks and the San Francisco Bay through spill response and cleanup and follow-up investigations to prevent recurrence," addressed a different area than some of the other programs. The area was of great concern to the community, specifically the Bay and the creeks. She asked whether the program should appear as an "A" status in the Plan. Ms. Mossar said the Subcommittee was confused by the change of NE-4.A5, NE-4.A6, and NE-4.A7 to a "B" status because the programs were part of the things that needed to be done in order to deal with surface water pollution. She agreed the program should be 04/10/95 75-363 included in the Plan, but the other programs should be in an edited form as part of the package that dealt with surface water pollution. Mayor Simitian clarified Ms. Mossar proposed that Programs NE-4.A5, NE-4.A6, and NE-4.A7 be blended into an edited form. Council Member Andersen understood that there was a serious problem with the effects of chlorine on the environment. He asked whether there was language in the document regarding the use of better technology to address the issue of chlorine. Ms. Mossar said the issue was a sanitary sewer issue and should be under Policy NE-4.B, "Control toxic discharge into the sanitary sewer system," which controlled the surface water pollution. The announcements regarding chlorine had been recent and came after the completion of the draft. Council Member Andersen asked staff to explore the extent to which the area needed to be considered and incorporated. Mayor Simitian asked which specific goals/policies/programs should the staff address. Council Member Andersen said the issue would involve NE-3, "Protect water resources/drinking water," and the chlorine that went into the drinking water and also into sewer disposal area. He wanted staff to investigate language in the document that would specifically address new technology that dealt with a recently recognized environmental hazard. Mayor Simitian asked staff where the issue would be pursued in the document. Mr. Schreiber said the issue could fall under both Goals NE-3 and NE-4. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct staff to review issues regarding drinking water and chlorination recognizing new technologies and to reflect the information appropriately in the Natural Environment Section. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Vice Mayor Wheeler would not object to Programs NE-4.A5 and NE-4.A7 being blended, but Program NE-4.A6 was in the existing Comp Plan and addressed an area of special sensitivity throughout the document. The Council had spent a lot of time discussing creeks in the document and the issue continued to be an important issue and had not been resolved since the adoption of the existing Comp Plan. Council Member Huber concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor Wheeler. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to incorpo- 04/10/95 75-364 rate as programs in the document NE-4.A5, "Work to reduce transportation sources of water pollution. Reduce vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT). Support regional and national efforts to reduce the amount of metals contained in brake pads, tires and other automotive parts, which contribute to pollution in urban runoff"; NE-4.A6, "Control toxic discharge to creeks and the San Francisco Bay through spill response and cleanup and follow-up investigation to prevent recurrence"; and NE-4.A7, "Identify new water pollution control measures through participation in BMP pilot studies." Mayor Simitian agreed with the comments of Vice Mayor Wheeler. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian supported Program NE-4.A4, "Limit amount of impermeable surfaces to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks and the San Francisco Bay." The program could impact significant programs such as the Stanford West project that would come before the Council in the future. Council Member Kniss asked why NE-5.B, "Reduce air quality problems caused by added traffic due to new developments and redevelopments," was deleted. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the Planning Commission felt that there might be new developments the City wanted con-structed, but the developments might have to be canceled because of increased traffic that would be generated which would in theory create more air pollution. It might be more important to put housing close to business and reduce the traffic in that way. Mayor Simitian clarified the Planning Commission view was that building projects should be approved or denied based on the quality of the land use and traffic information provided rather than on the air quality factor. Ms. Mossar said the NE Subcommittee's intent was not to stop development if it generated traffic, but rather to factor into the planning process air quality and to recognize that air quality was important to the quality of life and health of the citizenry and the environment. Poor air quality meant poor water quality, polluted rivers and bays, and unhealthy people. The Subcommittee wanted it included in the thoughtful deliberation of development projects. Council Member McCown felt that Policy NE-5.B was too broad and would not be helpful. She said staff recommended that Program NE-5.B3, "In reviewing and granting building permits and in approving re-zoning and subdivisions incentives improvements that will reduce the number of car trips," be reworded with the language, "In reviewing and granting building permits and in approving rezonings and subdivisions, the City should encourage builders and developers to provide improvements that will reduce the number of cars occupied by only one person. These improvements could include preferential car pool parking, bicycle storage, bus stop shelters, and substitution of landscaping for some required 04/10/95 75-365 parking spaces," from the existing Comp Plan which was much more specific regarding the building development situations. It was valuable to have a concept in the document about how to incorporate both congestion management and air quality issues in building and development issues. Language that supported the specific programs should be included within the goal and a modified general policy. She suggested it might be incorporated under Policy NE-5.A. Council Member Huber asked how the staff recommendation to substitute the original language from the existing Comp Plan differed from the language in NE-5.B3. Ms. Mossar said staff's comments were acceptable and indicated the Subcommittee's intent for the NE Section. Mayor Simitian agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown. It was an important and legitimate issue but did not want the policy used as a tool to discourage any applicant or proposal. He agreed with Council Member McCown's approach to incorporate the program in another policy or include as Policy NE.5.B language that would read: "Consider air quality impacts resulting from new developments and redevelopments." Council Member McCown said the Planning Commission also recommended that Program NE-5.B1, "Review proposed projects to reduce negative air quality impacts," become a "B" category. She suggested that the Program NE-5.B1 become a policy. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to delete NE-5.B, "Reduce air quality problems caused by added traffic due to new developments and redevelopment," and insert NE-5.B1, "Review proposed projects to reduce negative air quality impacts," as a policy; and delete NE-5.B2, "Improve capability to predict air quality impacts of proposed projects and activities"; and retain Program NE-5.B3 with the following revised wording: "In reviewing and granting building permits and in approving re-zoning and subdivisions, the City should encourage builders and developers to provide improvements that will reduce the number of cars occupied by only one person. These improvements would include preferential car pool parking, bicycle storage, bus stop shelters, and substitution of landscaping for some required parking spaces," and retain NE-5.B4, "Support the BAAQMD employer-based trip reduction rule, and work with the Chamber of Commerce to coordinate the efforts of small business." MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to add a new program NE-5.A3 as suggested by staff to read: "Expand the use of alternative fuel for City vehicles and privately-owned vehicles." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen asked that the Plan acknowledge that there 04/10/95 75-366 had been progress in air quality. Council Member Fazzino suggested language be added to NE-5.A1 that would read: "to continue progress which had occurred in improving air quality." MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to ensure that NE-5 reflects acknowledgement of significant progress in air quality management. Ms. Mossar asked that the language not imply that everything was perfect because the projections for the future were better but given the population and vehicle increases the gains that have been made were expected to be lost. Mayor Simitian said the intent of the motion was not to suggest that the problem had been solved. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Ms. Mossar said that some of the policies could be moved to the Transportation and/or Community Design Section, but there were key linkages with the air quality goals, e.g., when the new development in air quality evaluation was rewritten, the concept of trees was lost, but the Community Design Section included the importance of trees in the urban environment. Council Member Schneider asked whether there would be referral points in one section to another section. Mr. Schreiber said there would be a cross-reference system. Mayor Simitian hoped that the air quality concerns would be articulated in the NE Section as well as the Transportation Section. Council Member Schneider agreed with the Planning Commission and staff that Program NE-5.D1, "All new construction shall use only EPA-approved wood-burning stoves or inserts for fireplaces," might be difficult; however, some aggressive cities on the West and East Coast had prohibited the use of wood-burning stoves unless Environmental Protection Act (EPA) approved. It contributed significantly to localized air pollution. She wanted Program NE-5.D1 included in the Plan. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Huber, to reinstate NE-5.D1, "All new construction shall use only EPA-approved wood-burning stoves or inserts for fireplaces." in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Simitian asked what the reinstatement of the program meant from a practical matter. Mr. Schreiber said the Uniform Building Code (UBC) would have to be amended to recognize a local program. Staff would have to inform people about the program. It was not an unusual program, 04/10/95 75-367 and there were many other cities that had it. There was no national or regional policy on the issue. The EPA Coordinator annually received numerous complaints from people experiencing difficulties because of wood-burning stoves. Mayor Simitian said thousands of homes in the City had fireplaces, and he asked what would be different about what people could or could not do when they wanted to remodel and put in a new fire-place as a result of the action. Mr. Schreiber said there would be no impact if a person was not changing an existing fireplace. The action would impact the fireplace in reconstruction or new construction of a structure. There were EPA-approved inserts that could be placed in existing fireplaces that reduce the air emissions. Mayor Simitian asked the physical difference between an EPA-approved fireplace and a fireplace that was not approved. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said she had voluntarily retrofitted a freestanding fireplace with a controlled air intake insert. Other alternatives could also be chosen. Mr. Calonne accentuated that amending the UBC required specific fact findings that there was something unusual about the City's local conditions that justified the change. Council Member Fazzino asked whether a property owner who was reconstructing an area around a fireplace would be required to meet that new standard. Mr. Schreiber could not answer the question that evening. Mayor Simitian asked that the motion include a direction to staff to return with a clearer explanation of what the mandate would entail. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that staff be directed to return with an explanation of what the proposal would entail. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Schneider asked that NE-5.D2, "The City shall cooperate with the BAAQMD, the American Lung Association and other interested groups to alert residents about the health impacts of wood smoke," be retained in the Plan. Ms. Mossar said the Subcommittee viewed NE-5.D1 and NE-5.D2 as a pair. The intention of NE-5.D1 was that an EPA-approved fireplace or insert would be used if a person replaced his/her fireplace or put in a new fireplace. The Subcommittee wanted the City to participate with the agencies such as the American Lung Association and the local air district in educating the people who still had fireplaces about good burning rules. 04/10/95 75-368 Mayor Simitian said it was worth keeping in the Plan but did not believe it should be a program. Council Member Fazzino concurred with the comments of Mayor Simitian. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with the comments of Mayor Simitian. Mayor Simitian clarified the "B" level would be retained for Program NE-5.D2 which meant that it would be in the document but not as text. Council Member McCown referred to the staff comments on Program NE-6.B3, "Coordinate commercial and industrial disposal with the City's permit process for industrial storage, use and handling of hazardous materials," which was endorsed by the Planning Commis-sion. She asked what staff intended to happen with the program. Mr. Schreiber said staff would work with the appropriate City staff to reformulate the concept of NE-6.B3 into a program. Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said the staff comment related to the authority the City might have regarding the disposal of hazardous waste. Presently, it was regulated by state law and was enforced by the Santa Clara County Health Department. There was currently legislation being implemented within Santa Clara County (the County), SB1082, which would decide whether the City could take on that authority. Staff recommendations would be sent to the City Manager within the next several weeks from the Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee which was trying to coordinate the effort on a countywide basis. The City could, should the City Manager and the County agree, become a Certified Unified Public Agency. The issue was being discussed and options would be developed. All cities within the County had until January 1996 to submit their recommen-dations and applications to the California EPA. Mayor Simitian asked which entity made the handwritten change to Policy NE-6.C, "Clean up current hazardous waste sites and ground water pollution." He concurred with the handwritten change which made the language clearer and more straightforward. Ms. Cassel explained the staff made the change to the language. RECESS: 9:10 P.M. - 9:25 P.M. Council Member McCown believed Policy NE-8.A, "Maintain a proactive attitude at project review to prevent the introduction of additional controllable noise pollution," was a good policy; but she did not under the value Program NE-8.A1, "Monitor all new and/or increased developments and activities within Palo Alto and surrounding communities which might introduce additional noise pollution," and Program NE-8.A2, "The City will review all new development and redevelopment with the goal of eliminating any significant noise additions to the community," which indicated the City would review development with a goal of eliminating noise 04/10/95 75-369 additions had more meaning as a program. She preferred to have Program NE-8.A2 remain in the document and delete Program NE-8.A1. Ms. Cassel said the programs were duplicative and the Planning Commission chose one program over the other. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to merge Programs NE-8.A1,"Monitor all new and/or increased developments and activities within Palo Alto and surrounding communities which might introduce additional noise pollution," and NE-8.A2, "The City will review all new development and redevelopment with the goal of eliminating any significant noise additions to the community." MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member McCown believed Policy NE-8.B, "Take appropriate and reasonable actions to stop or reduce noise," was too broad for the Plan. The policy language should express the kinds of specific programs the Council wanted to address as a result of the programs. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to reword Policy NE-8.B, "Take appropriate and reasonable actions to stop or reduce noise," to be a more specific policy than the current wording. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member McCown's comments. He wanted to merge the programs together into a broader policy. He asked why the Subcommittee selected NE.8.B1, "Partici-pate in San Francisco Airport community round table to insure that as San Francisco Airport expands its operations into the next century Palo Alto is not negatively impacted," as opposed to the San Jose Airport or a future airport at Moffett Field as a result of the possibility of Reed Hillview being closed. He concurred with the idea of supporting the impact of airport noise on neighborhoods, but it should not begin and end with San Francisco Airport. Ms. Mossar said the Subcommittee would agree in principal but it was important that the City of Palo Alto participate in the community round tables one of which was the San Francisco Airport. There was recognition in the Subcommittee that parts of Palo Alto were in the flight path for the San Francisco Airport and the number of flights were increasing into that airport. The program wanted to acknowledge that there were major airports in the area which impacted the City and the City needed to participate in decisions about the airports. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino preferred that either Program NE.8.B1 be deleted or a broader statement developed with respect to airport noise. Mayor Simitian said noise from the City's local airport surfaced 04/10/95 75-370 periodically, and there was a qualitative and quantitative difference in terms of the noise impact that the local airport provided and other major commercial airports. He did not want to invite a problem on the City's local airport by any action the Council took to expand the program. The CPAC was looking at substantial impacts from commercial air traffic and not from local air traffic. He asked whether CPAC's intent acknowledged that noise was a more important issue than it had been historically. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC's intent was that more should be done about noise impacts. The National Environment Committee was ignored by CPAC, but the noise section created a great deal of comment. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to draft new language with respect to NE-8.B1, "Participate in San Francisco Airport community round table to insure that as San Francisco Airport expands its operations into the next century Palo Alto is not negatively impacted" which relates to commercial airport noise in general and to provide the City with an opportunity to participate in discussions regarding airport noise. Council Member Fazzino said a different set of standards could be proposed for the Palo Alto Airport as opposed to the larger commercial airports. Mayor Simitian said if the language were too broad, the Council would invite comments from people who wanted to point to the language of the Plan as the basis to attack operations at the Palo Alto Airport. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the language would only apply to commercial airports. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino did not want to limit the reference to Shoreline Amphitheatre in Program NE-8.B3, "The City will continue to work to reduce noise impacts created by concerts at the Shoreline Amphitheatre." Excessive noise that might come from surrounding communities such as Menlo Park or Stanford University should be addressed the same as Shoreline Amphitheatre. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC concurred with the revised language. The CPAC acknowledged that a certain contingency needed to be heard regarding Shoreline Amphitheatre. Mayor Simitian asked whether the program would remain a "B" item. Council Member Fazzino said the language should be included in Program NE-8.B3. Mayor Simitian clarified Program NE-8.B3 would be elevated from its status as a "B" item as well as the language being expanded. 04/10/95 75-371 Council Member Fazzino preferred the program be preserved as a program as long as the language was expanded. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to direct staff to revise Program NE-8.B3 to read: "The City will continue to work to reduce noise impacts created by events and activities taking place in adjoining communities," and retain it as a full Program. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was a consistency issue with the language and whether the City would be placed in a situation that it would have to proceed with litigation if Program NE-8.B3 were elevated in the Plan. Mr. Calonne said the language did not create a consistency issue as long as the City continued to work. Mayor Simitian asked whether that locked the City into working for the 15- to 20-year life of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne said yes. It would not affect a particular development project in Palo Alto which was how the Comp Plan was used. Ms. Cassel asked whether the surrounding communities could be included with Palo Alto excluded. Mr. Calonne said in the context of an ordinance regulating noise, the Council had an obligation to have reasonable categorization of different types of noise producers. Whether the Council could justify the distinction between an out-of-town noise producer from a local noise producer would probably be subject to the rational basis test which stated that the Council had a minimal obligation to produce some conceivable rational basis to support why the two noise sources should be treated differently. There was a legal issue, but it was not insurmountable. He said much of the "B" programs were focused in the City. Context improvements might be necessary to reinstate Program NE-8.B3. Mayor Simitian clarified Program NE-8.B3 language spoke specifically to concerts which would be expanded to include other venues besides Shoreline Amphitheatre. He asked whether the language would still be limited to concerts for the program. Council Member Fazzino wanted the language to be more general and the specific reference to Shoreline Amphitheatre eliminated. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC would not object to broadening the language to include adjoining communities. She referred to Program NE-8.B7, "The City will reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties through the following and other means, as appropriate: screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activi-ties, loud speakers, public address systems and mechanical equipment including leafblowers; orient noise sources toward and away from adjacent dwellings; wherever possible, do not remove fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers, although 04/10/95 75-372 design, safety and other impacts must be addressed; control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts," and said it was the Subcommittee's intention to discuss noise-generating events within the City and NE-8.B3 recognized what occurred outside of the City. She hoped the language would incorporate both. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Andersen "no," Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino asked whether car alarms could be regulated. Car alarms were one of the most obnoxious, offensive noise problems in the community. Mr. Calonne said cars were fundamental objects of commerce that moved about the state and would be greatly impacted by inconsistent regulations from town-to-town; but in the absence of state preemption, the City could regulate car alarms. Council Member Fazzino asked the City Attorney be directed to explore that issue and return with an opinion. Mayor Simitian would not support that direction. Council Member Huber said the issue was part of the Noise Ordinance which should be considered at that time. He believed it could be determined how long a person had to listen to the alarm before the car was towed away, but he was uncertain whether it could be stopped. Council Member Fazzino said a car alarm sounding at 1:00 a.m. was more of a significant noise impact than most of the issues raised in the section. He believed the issue could be addressed under NE-8.B7, "Screen and control noise sources such as parking..." He suggested the staff review the issue in the context of Program NE-8.B7 which would be an effort to update the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Schreiber noted the Planning Commission recommendation on page 22 of the Plan was to replace the long wording of NE-8.B7 with "Update the Noise Ordinance with Planning Commission Review." All of the details would not be identified, but the issue could be investigated. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff viewed the issue as a logical part of evaluation of the updated Noise Ordinance. Ms. Fleming said staff would review the issue if Council desired and return to the Council with a report. Mayor Simitian clarified the Comprehensive Plan would indicate that one of the programs would be to update the Noise Ordinance with Planning Commission review, and at that time, staff would look to the Council for direction about what issues might be included in that review. He was comfortable with a review in the context of a Noise Ordinance review rather than elevating it to the level of a Comprehensive Plan program. 04/10/95 75-373 Council Member Fazzino was comfortable with that approach. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to staff report (CMR:197:95) which indicated "the Noise section of the document needs more substance added to the proposed policies and programs...Council should evaluate the remaining policies, and staff should be directed to develop additional programs during Phase III to address noise reduction," and asked staff's intent regarding the statement. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission removed much of the substance from the noise section in terms of policies and programs. Staff asked for Council's guidance regarding what type of policies and programs should be in the section. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether NE-8.B7 would be retained. Mr. Schreiber said no. The Planning Commission recommended the wording in NE-8.B7 be replaced with "Update the Noise Ordinance with Planning Commission review." Council Member Rosenbaum clarified no noise sources would be mentioned. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what action might be appropriate if the Council were interested in the mention of leafblowers in the section. Mr. Schreiber said if the Council felt that the issue of leafblowers were of special importance, it would be appropriate to have a program to address that issue. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to revise the Substitute Program NE-8.B7, "Update the Noise Ordinance," to include the four bullets as listed under NE-8.B7, "Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, loud speakers, public address systems and mechanical equipment including leafblowers; orient noise sources toward and away from adjacent dwellings; wherever possible, do not remove fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers, although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed; control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts." Council Member McCown asked whether it was the motion's intent with the inclusion of the four points in the consideration of the update of the Noise Ordinance that there was a prejudgment of that consideration that there would be changes in those areas from the existing Noise Ordinance or whether the update process would evaluate those areas. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified he wanted the areas evaluated, including any other areas the staff suggested. 04/10/95 75-374 Mr. Calonne asked whether the motion included the Planning Commission's review. He said the language was problematic because it self-imposed an additional procedural hurdle on the legislation which could affect initiatives that could not receive Planning Commission review. He said it was not likely but a possibility. It was not the right place for the Council to affect a delegation of authority to the Planning Commission on its duties. He suggested softer language to footnote that as a reminder which the Council would consider at the time it reviewed the Noise Ordinance or a direction that the staff amend the Planning Commission Ordinance to give it authority over noise. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the motion did not refer to Planning Commission review. Mayor Simitian clarified the motion would amend Substitute Program NE-8.B7. He would not support the motion and preferred that the staff review the noise situation and return to the Council with its comments. He would value Planning Commission review but did not care where it was placed. He was not ready to make a definitive judgment about each of the noise sources and whether or not it should be the subject of the Noise Ordinance. He was comfortable with the language added by the Planning Commission. Council Member McCown concurred with the comments of Mayor Simitian because there was an implication that the update of the Noise Ordinance meant that the Council did not believe the existing Ordinance was working for each of the sources. For example, she did not want to create the implication in the document that the current Ordinance was not adequately controlling outdoor activity noises. MOTION FAILED 2-6, Fazzino, Rosenbaum "yes," Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to amend Substitute Program NE-8.B7 to read: "Update the Noise Ordinance." Council Member McCown clarified the motion would not preclude the Council from asking the Planning Commission to review the Noise Ordinance at that time. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to retain as a Program NE-8.B4, "The City will consider noise criteria in the purchase of new vehicles and other equipment." Council Member Andersen would support the program as a "B" status. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Wheeler, Andersen "no," Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino asked why the Planning Commission deleted Program NE-8.D2, "The City will strictly enforce the Noise 04/10/95 75-375 Ordinance." Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission recommended the Noise Ordinance be reviewed rather than leaving the language in place. Mr. Calonne said if strictly enforce meant enforce on other than a complaint basis, it might raise policy questions. He could not recommend the language if strictly enforce implied that the City did not strictly enforce other ordinances. He did not know whether the language referred to the City's style or complaint only. Council Member Huber clarified "strictly enforce" was in the existing Comp Plan. Ms. Mossar said the intent of the entire section was to address the flip side of the Noise Ordinance. There was sentiment in the community that the Noise Ordinance did not work and it was not well enforced. Several policies and programs had been discussed earlier regarding making it more complete. Ms. Fleming said the existing Noise Ordinance was enforced on a complaint basis. There would be a staffing issue if the Council wanted the Ordinance enforced on other than a complaint basis. Mayor Simitian wanted comment from the City Attorney about whether it made sense to include in the Comprehensive Plan that the City enforce the law which was a given. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the Noise Ordinance was enforced; however, the priority of response to the noise calls by the Police Department fell in the lower realm of things compared to other calls the police officers responded to. For example, during 1993 and 1994, the Police Department responded to 703 calls for service regarding noise. The biggest noise generator was leafblowers. Staff issued warnings for a first time offense and a citation for the second offense. In 1994, 67 warnings were issued and only 2 citations were issued for repeat offenders. Council Member Fazzino said there were so many complaints from members in the community that the Noise Ordinance was not enforced. He agreed with the Assistant Police Chief that other situations such as traffic safety problems or burglars took priority over noise complaints. There was an interest in the community to emphasize the need to enforce the Noise Ordinance. He was also troubled by the possible loss of the language. However, since the Council had decided to review the Noise Ordinance, it made sense to ask that issues of enforcement and standards be addressed as part of that review. Council Member McCown believed the greater issue for people was the standards rather than the enforcement. When a police officer took a measurement, the answer was often that it did not violate the Noise Ordinance. That issue would be addressed during the update of the Noise Ordinance. The Council needed to be careful and not create expectations of enforcement that could not be 04/10/95 75-376 fulfilled, i.e., the reality of a noise situation was that it was intermittent and the ability to verify and document that a violation had occurred was a problem. That situation could never be avoided and to put language in the Comprehensive Plan that suggested some ability to achieve enforcement that was not realistic in the community would be a mistake. It was more important to emphasize the standards. She would not support any system other than a complaint basis. She agreed with the Planning Commission decision that the language was not appropriate for the document. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether language could be added to NE-8.B7 to "Update the Noise Ordinance and methods of enforcement." Mayor Simitian clarified the update would consider both the standards and level of enforcement. He agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown, but he did not have a problem with the enforcement issue being reviewed in the context of a broader study of the Noise Ordinance. Council Member McCown said she still had a problem with the utility of Policy NE-8.B, "Take appropriate and reasonable action to stop or reduce noise," and might want to reformulate the policy when it returned from staff. Mayor Simitian clarified the policy had a "C" designation which would be deleted from the document. The policy would be restored with the language reworded. Council Member McCown said the programs that were retained needed a policy under which to fall. She agreed with the "C" designation for the present wording in the policy. Substitute language was needed. Mayor Simitian clarified the programs approved by Council would be reviewed and language would be drawn from the programs to make an appropriate policy description of the program activity. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to revise NE-8.D2, "The City will strictly enforce the Noise Ordi-nance," to reflect inclusion of the consideration of methods of enforcement. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to Monday, April 24, 1995, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Members Huber and Fazzino and Vice Mayor Wheeler re Referral of Tree Task Force Recommendations to Policy and Services and Finance Committees 04/10/95 75-377 MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer to the Policy and Services Committee consideration of the Tree Task Force Report which includes an ordinance, formation of a tree advisory board, and formation of a nonprofit tree advocacy group. Further, to refer to the Finance Committee the Task Force budget recommendations and to direct the Finance Committee to consider possible inclusion of necessary funds in the 1995-96 budget. Council Member Huber said the entire Tree Task Report would be reviewed by either the Finance and Policy and Services Committees as appropriate. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Schneider said that parking in the Downtown area had improved significantly. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 04/10/95 75-378